Today general qualifications (GQs), including GCSEs and A levels, are linear qualifications assessed through a series of terminal exams taken at the end of (usually) a two-year curriculum with the exception of a small number of qualifications which still contain an element of non-exam assessment (NEA).
Vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs), which include BTECs, T levels and other Level 1, 2 and 3 qualifications, are assessed in a more continuous, modular manner. Students are assessed throughout the duration of their course, completing work that contributes to an overall final grade.
The qualification landscape has not always looked like this. GQs historically boasted more modular structures and contained more NEA than they do today.
However, as many of you will remember, reforms began in 2013 by the then education secretary Michael Gove made exams the “default mode of assessment” with internal assessment/NEA only to be used “where exams cannot validly assess the skills and knowledge required” (Ofqual, 2013).
All GCSEs and A levels were to become linear qualifications, with exams sat only during the summer series except for English and maths resits. AS levels would be retained, but as standalone qualifications and not a means of progression to A2.
The pandemic necessitated contingency arrangements to be made to ensure that students still received grades for their qualifications in a world without exams. This highlighted the fragility of a model of terminal assessment and centres had to determine grades using different evidence.
By contrast, students taking VTQs with a more continuous form of assessment had already completed a number of modules providing evidence which could help determine a final grade – there was more resilience built into this system.
The fragilities highlighted during the pandemic have reignited the debate around whether our current examination landscape is fit-for-purpose.
Criticisms have been levelled at the system of linear, terminal exam-based assessment with its emphasis on short-term knowledge retention, the high stakes nature of those exams and the potential impact on student wellbeing.
It works for some students but disadvantages others and, as demonstrated by the pandemic, it is not robust in times of crisis if exams cannot be sat.
At the other end of the scale, continuous, non-exam-based assessment faces criticism for being less accurate and consistent. More time is taken out of teaching and learning throughout the year and marking and moderation processes create increased workload for teachers.
The NAHT’s Secondary Council has been debating these issues. It believes that the 2013 reforms to GCSE and A level qualifications have created a qualification system which does not meet the needs of all students or all subjects and has little resilience in the face of challenging circumstances.
Therefore, NAHT is pressing the government for a more balanced and varied approach to GQ assessment including non-exam assessment and opportunities for modular assessments.
VTQs offer this variety of assessment opportunities, and many students don’t follow a purely “academic” or “vocational” pathway but a mixed curriculum where qualifications complement each other to meet their needs and ambitions.
The NAHT supports and values the flexibilities of learning, assessment and awarding provided VTQs but are concerned that following the issues with results last summer there is a risk that the government may seek to reform VTQs, reducing those inherent flexibilities so these qualifications look (and act) more like GQs.
The introduction of T levels and the review of post-16 qualifications (DfE, 2021) is already changing the VTQ landscape significantly with some qualifications losing funding and new ones being developed.
The government’s approach creates a blunt choice for post-16 students: an academic or a technical route with limited qualification options.
Some young people will be forced to choose before they are ready which will have a lasting impact on their futures. Many students want, or need, more flexible pathways which include aspects of both technical and academic study, creating a blended curriculum.
Qualifications post-16, other than T levels and A levels, are chosen by schools to meet the needs of groups of students – those with SEND, for example, or those who perform relatively well at GCSE but who are not equipped to deal with the rigours of the new linear A levels.
Applied generals, including BTECs, are ideal for these groups of students and in a comprehensive setting provide an offer of qualifications which is inclusive – there is no “one-size-fits-all” path.
But plans to remove funding for qualifications which overlap with T levels (DfE, 2022) threaten the existence of applied generals like BTECs.
If school sixth forms are unable to offer these, those students seeking a blended offer of academic and vocational qualifications will be forced to move elsewhere, potentially making some school sixth forms financially unviable.
The government is making too many unnecessary changes to the VTQ landscape and seems unwilling to do anything to act to improve the GQ system.
It seems to have forgotten what is really important in all of this: that all students have the opportunity to access qualifications that are right for them, that motivate them to achieve, that enable them to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in an appropriate way, and that help them to progress to the next stage in their education, training, or employment.
- Sarah Hannafin is the head of policy (practice and research) at the National Association of Head Teachers. Visit www.naht.org.uk
Further information & resources
- DfE: Policy paper: Reforms to post-16 qualifications at level 3 in England, 2021: https://bit.ly/3L0qlKW
- DfE: Guidance: Qualifications that overlap with T Levels, 2022: https://bit.ly/41OuOXO
- Ofqual: Ofqual launches consultation on GCSE reform, 2013: https://bit.ly/41O5Is6